關鍵詞（Keyword）：TED演講，語言，發明，偉大，影響力
演講簡介：
為什麼說語言是人類歷史上最偉大的發明？因為語言是唯一一種我們能理解大腦中發生什麼的方式。語言不僅僅是一種工具，它是人類的遺產，是傳達人類意義的方式。讓我們聽HBO《權利遊戲》中的高級瓦雷利亞（High Valyrian language）的語言創造者David Peterson的分享創造語言的樂趣，以及學習和發明新語言如何幫助我們理解我們的集體人類的思考。
TED演講：為什麼語言是人類最偉大的發明（中英字幕版）
播放
暫停
進入全屏
退出全屏
00:00
00:00
重播請
刷新
試試演講者：David Peterson | TEDxBerkeley
主 題：Why language is humanity's greatest invention
整 理：tedtalking
雙語演講稿：
Spoons.
勺子。
Cardboard boxes.
紙箱。
Toddler-size electric trains.
兒童電動小火車。
Holiday ornaments.
節日裝飾品。
Bounce houses.
充氣城堡。
Blankets.
毛毯。
Baskets.
籃子。
Carpets.
地毯。
Tray tables.
小桌板。
Smartphones.
智能手機。
Pianos.
鋼琴。
Robes.
禮服長袍。
Photographs.
照片。
What do all of these things have in common, aside from the fact they're photos that I took in the last three months, and therefore, own the copyright to?
這些東西有什麼共同點？ 除了它們是我在過去 三個月中拍的照片 並且擁有著作權外？
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
They're all inventions that were created with the benefit of language. None of these things would have existed without language. Imagine creating any one of those things or, like, building an entire building like this, without being able to use language or without benefiting from any knowledge that was got by the use of language. Basically, language is the most important thing in the entire world. All of our civilization rests upon it. And those who devote their lives to studying it -- both how language emerged, how human languages differ, how they differ from animal communication systems -- are linguists. Formal linguistics is a relatively young field, more or less. And it's uncovered a lot of really important stuff. Like, for example, that human communication systems differ crucially from animal communication systems, that all languages are equally expressive, even if they do it in different ways.
它們是發明的產物， 得益於語言，它們被創造出來。 如果沒有語言這些東西 都不會被創造出來。 試想創造任何一個這些東西 或像建造這樣一個完整的大樓， 沒有語言溝通 或不借助因使用語言而獲得的知識。 從大體上來說，語言是這個世界上 最重要的東西。 我們所有的文明都依存於語言之上。 那些終生致力於研究語言的人—— 語言是怎麼出現的， 人類的語言為什麼有差異， 與動物的交流系統有什麼不同—— 是語言學家。 正統的語言學，或多或少仍是 個比較新的領域。 並且它揭示了許多真正重要的信息。 例如，人類的交流系統 與動物的交流系統有相當大的差異， 所有的語言都有相當的表現力， 即便他們的表達方式不同。
And yet, despite this, there are a lot of people who just love to pop off about language like they have an equal understanding of it as a linguist, because, of course, they speak a language. And if you speak a language, that means you have just as much right to talk about its function as anybody else. Imagine if you were talking to a surgeon, and you say, "Listen, buddy. I've had a heart for, like, 40 years now. I think I know a thing or two about aortic valve replacements. I think my opinion is just as valid as yours." And yet, that's exactly what happens.
當然，儘管如此， 還是許多隨便談論語言的人， 就像有語言學家那樣高的理解似的， 當然，他們會說某種語言。 如果你會講一種語言， 那就意味著你有同樣多的權利 像其他人一樣去談論它的功能。 想像一下假如你對一個外科醫生說， “聽著，哥們兒。 我活了四十年了。 我覺得我瞭解一些 主動脈瓣置換術的事情。 我認為我的觀點和你的一樣有效。” 是的，事情確實就是這樣的。
This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, saying that in the film "Arrival," he would have brought a cryptographer -- somebody who can unscramble a message in a language they already know -- rather than a linguist, to communicate with the aliens, because what would a linguist -- why would that be useful in talking to somebody speaking a language we don't even know? Though, of course, the "Arrival" film is not off the hook. I mean, come on -- listen, film. Hey, buddy: there are aliens that come down to our planet in gigantic ships, and they want to do nothing except for communicate with us, and you hire one linguist?
這是尼爾.德格拉塞.泰森 對電影《降臨》的評論， 他原本可以帶一個密碼專家—— 能夠用他們已經知道的語言解讀信息的人 而不是一名語言學家， 去和外星人對話， 因為為什麼一名語言學家—— 為什麼語言學家跟說我們完全不知道 的語言的人會有用？ 當然，《降臨》這部電影 並沒有擺脫困境。 我的意思是，瞧這部電影： 外星人坐在巨大的飛船裡 降臨到我們地球， 然後他們除了想和我們交流之外 什麼都不想做， 於是你就僱了一名語言學家？
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
What's the US government on a budget or something?
美國政府都在搞什麼預算？
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
A lot of these things can be chalked up to misunderstandings, both about what language is and about the formal study of language, about linguistics. And I think there's something that underlies a lot of these misunderstandings that can be summed up by this delightful article in "Forbes," about why high school students shouldn't learn foreign languages. I'm going to pull out some quotes from this, and I want you to see if you can figure out what underlies some of these opinions and ideas. "Americans rarely read the classics, even in translation." So in other words, why bother learning a foreign language when they're not even going to read the classic in the original anyway? What's the point? "Studying foreign languages in school is a waste of time, compared to other things that you could be doing in school." "Europe has a lot of language groups clustered in a relatively small space." So for Americans, ah, what's the point of learning another language? You're not really going to get a lot of bang for your buck out of that. This is my favorite, "A student in Birmingham would have to travel about a thousand miles to get to the Mexican border, and even then, there would be enough people who speak English to get around." In other words, if you can kind of wave your arms around, and you can get to where you're going, then there's really no point in learning another language anyway.
許多這樣的事情可以人們對 什麼是語言，什麼是正式的語言學習， 什麼是語言學存在誤區。 我認為支撐這些誤區之下的東西 可以由這篇發表在《福布斯》 上的令人愉悅的文章概括， 這是一篇為什麼高中生 不應當學習外語的文章。 我會從中抽取一些文段， 我想讓你們看看， 你們是否能夠搞清 這些觀點和想法的基礎是什麼。 “美國人很少讀原著，即便是譯本。” 所以，換句話說，為什麼 要為學一門外語而煩惱呢， 既然他們無論如何都 不去閱讀原著典籍？ 有什麼意義呢？ “與其他可以在學校做的事情相比， 在學校裡學習外語是浪費時間。” “歐洲有許多語種聚集在 一個相對狹小的空間裡。” 所以對於美國人， 學一門外語的意義何在呢？ 你真不會從那得到什麼大的好處。 這是我最愛的， “一名在伯明翰的學生可能會旅行 大約一千英里來到墨西哥邊界， 即使這樣，那裡也有足夠多 講英語的人在周圍。” 換句話說，如果你能稍微招招手， 你就能到達任何你想去的地方。 所以真沒有意義去學一門外語。
What underlies a lot of these attitudes is the conceptual metaphor, language is a tool. And there's something that rings very true about this metaphor. Language is kind of a tool in that, if you know the local language, you can do more than if you didn't. But the implication is that language is only a tool, and this is absolutely false. If language was a tool, it would honestly be a pretty poor tool. And we would have abandoned it long ago for something that was a lot better. Think about just any sentence. Here's a sentence that I'm sure I've said in my life: "Yesterday I saw Kyn." I have a friend named Kyn. And when I say this sentence, "Yesterday I saw Kyn," do you think it's really the case that everything in my mind is now implanted in your mind via this sentence? Hardly, because there's a lot of other stuff going on.
這些看法的基礎是這種概念隱喻， 語言是一種工具。 這個隱喻聽起來非常真實。 語言是一種工具， 如果你懂當地的語言，你可以 做更多之前不能做的事情。 但是這暗示了語言只是一種工具， 這是絕對錯誤的。 如果語言是一種工具， 老實說，這是種相當不好用的工具。 我們會在很久以前就拋棄它 而去使用更好的工具。 隨便想一個句子。 這裡有個我確信在生活中說過的句子： “昨天我看見肯了。” 我有一位叫肯的朋友。 當我說這句話，“昨天我看見肯了，“ 你覺得我腦海中的東西 通過這句話就植入你的大腦 的這個場景真實嗎？ 當然不是，因為還有許多其它的東西。
Like, when I say "yesterday," I might think what the weather was like yesterday because I was there. And if I'm remembering, I'll probably remember there was something I forgot to mail, which I did. This was a preplanned joke, but I really did forget to mail something. And so that means I'm going to have to do it Monday, because that's when I'm going to get back home. And of course, when I think of Monday, I'll think of "Manic Monday" by the Bangles. It's a good song. And when I say the word "saw," I think of this phrase: "'I see!' said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw." I always do. Anytime I hear the word "saw" or say it, I always think of that, because my grandfather always used to say it, so it makes me think of my grandfather. And we're back to "Manic Monday" again, for some reason. And with Kyn, when I'm saying something like, "Yesterday I saw Kyn," I'll think of the circumstances under which I saw him. And this happened to be that day. Here he is with my cat. And of course, if I'm thinking of Kyn, I'll think he's going to Long Beach State right now, and I'll remember that my good friend John and my mother both graduated from Long Beach State, my cousin Katie is going to Long Beach State right now. And it's "Manic Monday" again.
例如，當我說“昨天”， 我可能會想到昨天的天氣怎麼樣， 因為我在那裡。 然後如果我繼續回憶， 我將可能會回憶起我忘記發快遞了， 這是一個預先計劃的笑話， 但我確實忘記發快遞了。 所以那意味著我將不得不在週一郵寄它， 因為那是我要回家的時候。 當然，當我想起週一， 我將會想起手鐲樂隊的 “炸裂的星期一”，這是首不錯的歌。 當我說單詞“看見”，我想起了這個句子： “‘我看見了’，瞎子邊說邊拿起 錘子和鋸子。” 我總是這樣。 無論何時我聽見單詞“看”或者說它時， 我總會像這樣去想， 因為我的祖父過去總是這樣說， 所以它使我想起了我的祖父。 現在我們再次回到“炸裂的星期一”， 因為某些緣故。 伴隨著肯，當我說： “昨天我看見肯了，” 我會想起我看見他的場景。 就在那天，他和我的貓在一起。 當然，如果我想到肯， 我會想起他現在將去長灘市， 並且我會記起我的好朋友 約翰和我媽媽 都是從長灘州立大學畢業的， 我的姐姐凱特現在也將去這所大學唸書。 然後又是“炸裂的星期一”
But this is just a fraction of what's going on in your head at any given time while you are speaking. And all we have to represent the entire mess that is going on in our head, is this. I mean, that's all we got.
但這一切都只是在 你說話的任何時候 發生在我腦海裡的一些碎片。 我們所要做的就是把我們腦子裡 發生的一切都表現出來，就是這個。 我的意思是，那就是全部東西。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
Is it any wonder that our system is so poor? So imagine, if I can give you an analogy, imagine if you wanted to know what is it like to eat a cake, if instead of just eating the cake, you instead had to ingest the ingredients of a cake, one by one, along with instructions about how these ingredients can be combined to form a cake. You had to eat the instructions, too.
難怪我們的系統這麼差？ 想象一下，如果我給你一個類比， 試想如果你想知道 吃蛋糕是什麼感覺， 如果不只是吃蛋糕， 而是你必須嚥下這個蛋糕的原料， 一個接一個的， 按照說明書說的 將這些材料組合成一個蛋糕來。 你也必須也把說明書吃掉。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
If that was how we had to experience cake, we would never eat cake. And yet, language is the only way -- the only way -- that we can figure out what is going on here, in our minds. This is our interiority, the thing that makes us human, the thing that makes us different from other animals, is all inside here somewhere, and all we have to do to represent it is our own languages. A language is our best way of showing what's going on in our head. Imagine if I wanted to ask a big question, like: "What is the nature of human thought and emotion?" What you'd want to do is you'd want to examine as many different languages as possible. One isn't just going to do it. To give you an example, here's a picture I took of little Roman, that I took with a 12-megapixel camera. Now, here's that same picture with a lot fewer pixels. Obviously, neither of these pictures is a real cat. But one gives you a lot better sense of what a cat is than the other.
如果我們是這樣品嚐蛋糕的， 我們將絕不會再吃蛋糕了。 然而，語言是唯一一種， 唯一一種 我們能理解大腦中發生什麼的方式。 這是我們的內在， 是使我們成為人類的東西， 是使我們與其他動物有區別的東西， 都在這裡面某個地方， 我們所要做的是用自己 的語言來表達它。 語言是展示我們頭腦想法的最好方式。 試想如果我要問一個重要的問題： “人類思想和情感的本質是什麼？” 你要做的就是 儘可能多地研究不同 的語言。 一種並不足以回答。 舉個例子 這有一張我從羅馬拍的照片， 用了1200萬像素的相機。 現在，這有一張相同的低像素的照片。 當然，這兩張照片拍的都不是真正的貓。 但其中一張比另一張讓你感覺更像貓。
Language is not merely a tool. It is our legacy, it's our way of conveying what it means to be human. And of course, by "our" legacy, I mean all humans everywhere. And losing even one language makes that picture a lot less clear.
語言不僅僅是一種工具。 是我們的遺產， 這是我們表達身為人 的意義的方式。 當然，“我們”的遺產， 我指的是任何地方的人。 即使是失去一種語言， 也會使這幅圖景變得模糊。
So as a job for the past 10 years and also as recreation, just for fun, I create languages. These are called "conlangs," short for "constructed languages." Now, presenting these facts back to back, that we're losing languages on our planet and that I create brand-new languages, you might think that there's some nonsuperficial connection between these two. In fact, a lot of people have drawn a line between those dots. This is a guy who got all bent out of shape that there was a conlang in James Cameron's "Avatar." He says, "But in the three years it took James Cameron to get Avatar to the screen, a language died." Probably a lot more than that, actually. "Na'vi, alas, won't fill the hole where it used to be ..." A truly profound and poignant statement -- if you don't think about it at all.
所以過去十年我做的工作 也是一種消遣，僅僅是因為樂趣， 我創造語言。 它們被稱作“造語” “人造語言”的簡稱。 現在，我一件件地闡述這些事實， 在地球上我們正在遺失自己的語言， 所以我創造了全新的語言， 你可能認為它們之間有某種 非表面的聯繫。 事實上，許多人已經在 這兩點間畫了一條線。 有個人對詹姆斯·卡梅隆執導的 《阿凡達》中的某個人造語言大為惱火。 他說， “在三年時間內詹姆斯·卡梅隆 把《阿凡達》搬上銀幕， 一種語言消亡了。” 也許事實上還遠不止這樣。 “納美人，唉，填補不了曾經的空白…” 一個真正深遠且深刻的觀點—— 如果你不去想的話。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
But when I was here at Cal, I completed two majors. One of them was linguistics, but the other one was English. And of course, the English major, the study of English, is not actually the study of the English language, as we know, it's the study of literature. Literature is just a wonderful thing, because basically, literature, more broadly, is kind of like art; it falls under the rubric of art. And what we do with literature, authors create new, entire beings and histories. And it's interesting to us to see what kind of depth and emotion and just unique spirit authors can invest into these fictional beings. So much so, that, I mean -- take a look at this. There's an entire series of books that are written about fictional characters. Like, the entire book is just about one fictional, fake human being. There's an entire book on George F. Babbitt from Sinclair Lewis's "Babbitt," and I guarantee you, that book is longer than "Babbitt," which is a short book. Does anybody even remember that one? It's pretty good, I actually think it's better than "Main Street." That's my hot take. So we've never questioned the fact that literature is interesting. But despite the fact, not even linguists are actually interested in what created languages can tell us about the depth of the human spirit just as an artistic endeavor.
但當我在加州大學時， 我修完了兩門專業。 一門是語言學另一門是英文。 當然，英文專業，研究英文， 但並不是真正的像我們 認為的那樣研究英語， 是研究英國文學。 文學是很美妙的， 因為基本上講，文學非常廣博， 有些像藝術那樣； 它屬於藝術範疇。 當我們研究文學時發現， 作者創造了全新的生物和歷史故事。 而且我們很高興看到 作者可以授予這些虛構的眾生 各種不同深度的情感 和獨特的精神。 所以，看看這些。 有一系列的書 來完整地描繪這些虛擬人物。 就像，整本書只是描述一個虛幻的故事， 一個不存在的人。 這有一整本辛克萊·劉易斯寫的《巴比特》， 關於喬治·F·巴比特的書， 並且我向你保證，那書比“巴比特”長， 是一篇短篇書。 有人記得這本書嗎？ 那本書非常好，我其實 覺得它比《大街》還好。 這是我的最愛。 所以我們絕不會質疑文學 的趣味性這個事實。 但除了這個事實， 事實上，即使是語言學家也沒有興趣知道， 究竟是什麼創造了語言， 才能夠告訴我們人類精神的深度。
I'll give you a nice little example here. There was an article written about me in the California alumni magazine a while back. And when they wrote this article, they wanted to get somebody from the opposing side, which, in hindsight, seems like a weird thing to do. You're just talking about a person, and you want to get somebody from the opposing side of that person.
我給你舉一個小例子。 前陣子在加州校友的雜誌中 有一篇關於我的文章。 當他們寫這篇文章時， 他們卻想找一個與我對立的人， 事後看來，這很奇怪。 你是在談論一個人， 但你想找一個與他完全不同陣營的人。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
Essentially, this is just a puff piece, but whatever. So, they happened to get one of the most brilliant linguists of our time, George Lakoff, who's a linguist here at Berkeley. And his work has basically forever changed the fields of linguistics and cognitive science. And when asked about my work and about language creation in general, he said, "But there's a lot of things to be done in the study of language. You should spend the time on something real." Yeah. "Something real." Does this remind you of anything? To use the very framework that he himself invented, let me refer back to this conceptual metaphor: language is a tool. And he appears to be laboring under this conceptual metaphor; that is, language is useful when it can be used for communication. Language is useless when it can't be used for communication. It might make you wonder: What do we do with dead languages? But anyway.
尤其是，這還是一篇吹捧性文章。 他們碰巧找到了 我們這個時代最傑出的語言學家之一， 喬治·萊考夫，在伯克利的語言學家。 他的作品基本上永久 改變了語言學領域 和認知科學。 當他被問起關於我的作品 和大體的語言創造時， 他說:“但是在語言研究方面 還有很多事情要做。 你應當在一些實事上花時間。” 沒錯。 “一些實事。”，它有使你回想起什麼了嗎？ 用他自己發明的框架， 讓我回顧一下這個概念隱喻: 語言是一種工具。 而且他像是在這個隱喻概念下 努力工作； 也就是說，當語言可以被 用來交流時它是有用的。 當語言不能被用來交流時是無用的。 這也許會令你想知道: 對於消亡的語言我們應該做什麼？ 但無論如何。
So, because of this idea, it might seem like the very height of absurdity to have a Duolingo course on the High Valyrian language that I created for HBO's "Game of Thrones." You might wonder what, exactly, are 740,000 people learning?
因為有了這樣的想法， 這可能看起來像非常荒謬， 對我在HBO的《冰與火之歌》中所創造 的高級瓦雷利亞語言 開設一門“多鄰國”課程。 你可能會好奇， 這74萬人到底在學什麼？
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
Well, let's take a look at it. What are they learning? What could they possibly be learning? Well, bearing in mind that the other language for this -- it's for people that speak English -- English speakers are learning quite a bit. Here's a sentence that they will probably never use for communication in their entire lives: "Vala ābre urnes." "The man sees the woman." The little middle line is the gloss, so it's word for word, that's what it says. And they're actually learning some very fascinating things, especially if they're English speakers. They're learning that a verb can come at the very end of a sentence. Doesn't really do that in English when you have two arguments. They're learning that sometimes a language doesn't have an equivalent for the word "the" -- it's totally absent. That's something language can do. They're learning that a long vowel can actually be longer in duration, as opposed to different in quality, which is what our long vowels do; they're actually the same length. They're learning that there are these little inflections. Hmm? Hmm? There are inflections called "cases" on the end of nouns --
讓我們看看這個。 他們在學什麼？ 他們可能在學什麼？ 記住這一點，另一種語言是—— 針對說英語的人而言—— 學英語的人要學習不少東西。 有一句話他們可能一生中都不會 用在對話中： “Vala ābre urnes.” “那個男人看見了那個女人。” 中間的小線是註釋， 所以這是逐字對應的，這是它的意思。 並且他們確實學到了 一些超級棒的東西， 尤其是如果他們是說英語的人。 他們能學到動詞是可以 放在一句話的末尾的。 在英語中，當你有兩個論點時 並不會這樣用。 他們學習到有時候 一門語言中沒有“the”這個詞的對應詞， 它是完全不存在的。 這是語言可以做到的。 他們學習到長元音的持續時間可能更長， 用於和其它音加以區別， 這就是我們的長元音的作用； 它們實際上是一樣長的。 他們學習到有這些微小的變化。 嗯？ 名詞後面有人稱“格”的屈折變化——
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
that tell you who does what to whom in a sentence. Even if you leave the order of the words the same and switch the endings, it changes who does what to whom. What they're learning is that languages do things, the same things, differently. And that learning languages can be fun. What they're learning is respect for Language: capital "L" Language. And given the fact that 88 percent of Americans only speak English at home, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
那在一句話中告訴你 誰對誰做了什麼。 即使你保持單詞的順序不變 並改變詞尾， 它也會改變誰對誰做了什麼。 他們正在學習的是，語言做的事情， 一樣的事情，不同的方式。 像這樣學語言會很有趣。 他們正在學的是尊重語言 :“L”開頭的單詞，語言。 鑑於88％的美國人在國內 只說英語的事實， 我認為這並不是一件壞事。
You know why languages die on our planet? It's not because government imposes one language on a smaller group, or because an entire group of speakers is wiped out. That certainly has happened in the past, and it's happening now, but it's not the main reason. The main reason is that a child is born to a family that speaks a language that is not widely spoken in their community, and that child doesn't learn it. Why? Because that language is not valued in their community. Because the language isn't useful. Because the child can't go and get a job if they speak that language. Because if language is just a tool, then learning their native language is about as useful as learning High Valyrian, so why bother?
你們知道為什麼語言會在 我們的星球消亡嗎？ 不是因為政府將一種語言 強加在一個小群體上， 或者是某一群講這種語言 的人滅亡了。 那種事情過去發生過， 並且現在也正在發生， 但那並不是主要原因。 主要原因是一個孩子出生在一個 說一種在他們的社區並不廣泛 使用的語言的家庭， 而且孩子不學它。 為什麼？ 因為那種語言在他們社區中沒有任何價值。 因為那種語言沒有用。 因為如果孩子說那種語言 就不能出行，找工作。 因為語言僅僅是一種工具， 那麼學習他們的土著語 就和學習高瓦里安語一樣， 所以為什麼要去學呢？
Now ... Maybe language study isn't going to lead to a lot more linguistic fluency. But maybe that's not such a big deal. Maybe if more people are studying more languages, it will lead to more linguistic tolerance and less linguistic imperialism. Maybe if we actually respect language for what it is -- literally, the greatest invention in the history of humankind -- then in the future, we can celebrate endangered languages as living languages, as opposed to museum pieces.
現在…… 也許學習語言並不會 讓語言更加流利。 但這也許沒什麼大不了的。 也許如果更多的人 學習更多的語言， 將會導致更多的語言包容 和更少的語言專制。 也許如果我們確實尊重語言—— 因為語言是人類歷史上最偉大的發明—— 那麼在將來， 我們可以把瀕臨滅絕的語言 當作活的語言來慶祝， 而非博物館裡的展品。
(High Valyrian) Kirimvose. Thank you.
（高瓦里安語）Kirimvose謝謝。
(Applause)
（鼓掌）
傳播有價值的思想和觀點！
我相信這些新觀點和有價值思想將讓我們的人生大不同！
從中英文字幕到無字幕，重複視聽，享受演講內容！
不用過於刻意，思維方式將會改變，生活將會改變，英文水平也會隨之提高！
